[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- To: Matthew Gertner <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"'W. E. Perry'" <email@example.com>, XML DEV <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 14:30:14 -0500
At 07:48 PM 3/12/01 +0100, Matthew Gertner wrote:
>Let me get this straight. I have the following document:
>What you are saying is that someone might want to treat "value" directly
>as something other than a floating point number?
Can't speak directly for Walter, but yep. It's totally up to the
recipient, IMHO. What's interesting about 45.67? That it's a floating
point number? That it includes two sequential pairs of numbers separated
by a period, which together form a four-digit sequence? That 45<67?
Sure, it gets ridiculous. But unless you have a pre-existing relationship
with the recipient, or are the recipient yourself, why do you automatically
expect them to share your reading of what's important?
>I can easily see how this
>element could be transformed into a boolean (e.g. greater than 30) for
>display, or into an integer (e.g. through truncation) for some other
>processing. But surely the original value in the original document is
>always a real number, right? If not, I'd appreciate a more concrete
>example. I'm not sure whether I get it.
I think you get it just fine. The hard part is getting used to the
contingency involved, rather than trying to obliterate it. Contingency
isn't well-loved in computing, but it's a pretty normal aspect of everyday
Simon St.Laurent - Associate Editor, O'Reilly and Associates
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books